An infinite past.

Originally posted by kiki46
In eternity past as well as eternity future there is existence without time. God created time for mankind as a frame of reference for our lives. Without time it becomes easier to understand infinity. With time there is past, present and future, without time there is only the present. Time is a boundary for mankind. God does not have any boundaries and neither will we in eternity.

If you believe that your god is not subject to time then you trivialize it to such extent that its entire existence is constrained to a single temporal point, and of course, you contradict the Bible too. (For a simple example, looking at what he hadReveal Hidden Contentcreated and seeing that it was good, implies past and present)

Indeed if any of its actions take place between or on two (or more) distinct temporal points, then since the distance between them may be referred to as "time" (wrt whatever metric is appropriate for these temporal points ) then your god is as subject to some notion of time as we are. As a thought experiment, I can roll with the notion of some god existing unconstrained by our temporal dimension in much the same way it might be unconstrained by our spatial dimensions - but to say your god does not experience any form of time is a stretch too far.

Originally posted by Agerg
If you believe that your god is not subject to time then you trivialize it to such extent that its entire existence is constrained to a single temporal point, and of course, you contradict the Bible too. (For a simple example, looking at what he [b]had[hidden]supposedly[/hidden]created and seeing that it was good, implies past and present)

Indeed if any ...[text shortened]... al dimensions - but to say your god does not experience any form of time is a stretch too far.[/b]

I like your profile but please don't use "it" when referring to God.

Originally posted by kiki46
Specific details are not given to us. This is just a qualified assumption based on Scripture. We will only know as God knows when we get to heaven. We only have limited qualifications to understand the infinite omniscience of God. If we believe in Christ one day we will.

I see. Not sure why you responded if you are unable to add substance to what can still only be termed a vacuous concept. A concept based on wild speculation no less.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why not? twhitehead has already admitted once that he often posts here only to start stuff with Christians for entertainment.

Are you gonna eat ALL that popcorn?

I'm thinking it likely that he didn't have your entertainment in mind.

Actually I have no problem with hammering out the details. From what I've seen, TW is one of the few actually willing to do that. As they say, "The devil is in the detail" or alternately "God is in the detail".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While that may be how you conceive it, I introduced the phrase "always existed" to our discussion with the meaning of the commonly accepted definition in mind. As such, that's what prevails. I assume you understand my intended meaning. If you don't like the phrase 'always existed', then feel free to replace it with a phrase you feel more comfortable with. ...[text shortened]... ing and he used the phrase "existed forever". Perhaps that will work better for you.

Actually, I thought you introduced the phrase in reference to usage by theists with regards to God. Theists can be a bit inconsistent insisting that God is both outside time and has 'always existed'. Also, most people have difficulty with the concept of finite time, insisting that there must be something before or prior to the beginning, which in reality is incoherent.
If you claim that the 'commonly accepted' definition of 'always existed' implies infinite time, then are you claiming that most people believe time is infinite? But then your original argument seems to boil down to: since most people talk as if time is infinite, then it is foolish of them to believe time is finite. Is that about right?

Originally posted by kiki46
I like your profile but please don't use "it" when referring to God.

I suggest there is no pronoun -- he/him; she/her; they/them; I/me; it; -- that accurately applies to God as properly conceptualized. They apply to worldly things, and are language dependent. Using any of them is limiting. This is not to say that the verb "exists" in "God exists" or "God does not exist" accurately applies to God.

Originally posted by kiki46
I like your profile but please don't use "it" when referring to God.

Demonstrate that your god is a thing that actually exists, and that it is equipped with all the necessary anatomical features to qualify as male, and I shall refer to it by "he" or "him" etc..
Further, after having accomplished that, demonstrate it is not the twisted, blood lusting, genocidal thug as portrayed in the Bible or theists accounts of it, amd that it is worthy of profound veneration on my part, and I might capitalise the 'h' also.

Until then, your god remains a childish, ill-conceived, and unsophisticated figment of the imaginations of iron age people - fairly referenced via 'it'.

Hope this helps 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, I thought you introduced the phrase in reference to usage by theists with regards to God. Theists can be a bit inconsistent insisting that God is both outside time and has 'always existed'. Also, most people have difficulty with the concept of finite time, insisting that there must be something before or prior to the beginning, which in reality ...[text shortened]... me is infinite, then it is foolish of them to believe time is finite. Is that about right?

If you claim that the 'commonly accepted' definition of 'always existed' implies infinite time, then are you claiming that most people believe time is infinite? But then your original argument seems to boil down to: since most people talk as if time is infinite, then it is foolish of them to believe time is finite. Is that about right?

No and No. The point is that if one can conceive of something "existing forever", then they can also conceive of something having an "infinite past", since everything "existing forever" has an "infinite past". Furthermore, it doesn't matter what that "something" is. It can be the universe, time or even God. The argument that an "infinite past" is inconceivable because the present could never be reached is just nonsense.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The point is that if one can conceive of something "existing forever", then they can also conceive of something having an "infinite past", since everything "existing forever" has an "infinite past". Furthermore, it doesn't matter what that "something" is. It can be the universe, time or even God. The argument that an "infinite past" is inconceivable because the present could never be reached is just nonsense.

But what if they do not believe that God or anything else "existed forever" by your definition? I am sure that is implied by anyone claiming time is finite.
A God that existed from an infinite past, would even raise the question of why, in all of infinity, he suddenly got the idea of making a universe. And has he perhaps created an infinity of universes in the past for his infinite amusement?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what if they do not believe that God or anything else "existed forever" by your definition? I am sure that is implied by anyone claiming time is finite.
A God that existed from an infinite past, would even raise the question of why, in all of infinity, he suddenly got the idea of making a universe. And has he perhaps created an infinity of universes in the past for his infinite amusement?

Not sure why you're bundling in all those other issues. I'm only trying to address the argument that an "infinite past" is inconceivable because the present could never be reached. "Conception" of something does not necessarily require "belief" in the existance of that thing. For example, I'm sure you can conceive of a "creator being" that brought the universe into existence. That does not mean that you necessarily believe that such a "creator being" exists.

Originally posted by Agerg
Demonstrate that your god is a thing that actually exists, and that it is equipped with all the necessary anatomical features to qualify as male, and I shall refer to it by "he" or "him" etc..
Further, after having accomplished that, demonstrate it is not the twisted, blood lusting, genocidal thug as portrayed in the Bible or theists accounts of it, amd that ...[text shortened]... the imaginations of iron age people - fairly referenced via 'it'.

Hope this helps 🙂

More to the point, you're just doing it to tick off the Christians.

According to people who think like you do, there's no proof of any girls on the internet, either, so why not call everyone who claims to be a girl 'it' because you have no proof that they are "equipped with all the necessary anatomical features". So you make concession and call those who claim to be female 'she' and 'her'. Similarly, God claims to be 'He' in the Bible, others call Him 'Father', so why not give Him that tiny bit of respect?

Because you want to tick off the Christians. That's all.

(Further evidenced by all the names you call Him. Does it really bug you that much that you're not in 'the club'? I notice you don't miss an opportunity to blast Him with more name-calling. Including 'it' over 'he'.)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure why you're bundling in all those other issues. I'm only trying to address the argument that an "infinite past" is inconceivable because the present could never be reached. "Conception" of something does not necessarily require "belief" in the existance of that thing. For example, I'm sure you can conceive of a "creator being" that brought the uni ...[text shortened]... That does not mean that you necessarily believe that such a "creator being" exists.

The question is not whether something is conceivable, but whether there is a logical or philosophical argument that proves it cannot exist. Of course I can conceive an invisible pink unicorn in my fridge, but unless I resolve the internal contradiction in the definition, it cannot exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
More to the point, you're just doing it to tick off the Christians.

So why do Christians get ticked off? You don't own God, nor are you responsible for maintaining his reputation, or are you? If so, why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question is not whether something is conceivable, but whether there is a logical or philosophical argument that proves it cannot exist. Of course I can conceive an invisible pink unicorn in my fridge, but unless I resolve the internal contradiction in the definition, it cannot exist.

Keep in mind the context in which that was said:
"I'm only trying to address the argument that an 'infinite past' is inconceivable because the present could never be reached."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Keep in mind the context in which that was said:
"I'm only trying to address the argument that an 'infinite past' is [b]inconceivable because the present could never be reached."[/b]

Well since people are quite happy conceiving of the most ridiculous and irrational things, I find it inconceivable that there is anything that can be mentioned that is genuinely inconceivable. The fact that you can talk about it means it is conceivable. If something is inconceivable, how do you even tell us what it is?